Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDP 89-18; Cazadero Meadows; Hillside Development Permit (HDP) (3)City of Carlsbad Planning Department NO77CE OF DETERMINATION County Clerk December 19, 1989 County of San Diego Ann: Mail Drop C-11 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad on December 19, 1989, approved the following project: Project Title: CAZADERO MEADOWS HDP 89-18 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Telephone Project Address/Location: 2704 Cazadero Drive Project Description: Hillside Development Permit for a single family residence. This is to advise that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: CITY OF CARLSBAD 3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of this project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. ,r MICHAEL J. HOLZMILtER Planning Director DN:lh 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 City of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: 2704 Cazadero Drive/north side of Cazadero Drive west of Corintia Street. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hillside Development Permit for single family residence proposing 2,930 cubic yards of fill. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: December 8, 1989 ___ _ MICHAEL J. H^LZMILSER CASE NO: HDP 89-18 Planning Director APPLICANT: Ken Long PUBLISH DATE: December 8, 1989 DN:af 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 City of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: west of Corintia Street. 2704 Cazadero Drive/north side of Cazadero Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hillside Development Permit for single family residence proposing 2,930 cubic yards of fill. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATED: December 8, 1989 CASE NO: HDP 89-18 APPLICANT: Ken Long PUBLISH DATE: December 8, 1989 DN:af MICHAEL J. H^LZMII^ER Planning Director 2O75 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO9-4859 • (619) 438-1161 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. HDP 89-18 DATE: December 5, 1989 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Cazadero Meadows 2. APPLICANT: Ken Long 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 527 N. Hwv. 101 "B" Solana Beach. CA 92075 (619) 481-7866 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hillside Development Permit for a proposed single family residence. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration. * A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. On the checklist, "NO" will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insignificant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings "YES-sig" and "YES-insig" respectively. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO(sig) (insig) Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? X_ Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? X_ Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? X_ Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X_ Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? X_ Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? X_ 7. Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? X_ 8. Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? X_ 9. Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? X_ 10. Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X_ 11. Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? X_ -2- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO(sig) (insig) 12. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 15. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? 13. Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X_ 14. Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? X_ 16. Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X_ HUNAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO(sig) (insig) 17. Alter the present or planned land use of an area? X 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, fire, emergency or other public services? X_ 19. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? X_ 20. Increase existing noise levels? X_ 21. Produce new light or glare? X. -3- HUMAN ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO(sig) (insig) 22. Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X_ 30. Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans? -4- 23. Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? X_ 24. Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X_ 25. Generate substantial additional traffic? X 26. Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? X. 27. Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X_ 28. Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? X_ 29. Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X_ 31. Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? X_ 32. Affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X_ MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YES YES NO(sig) (insig) 33. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. X_ 34. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X_ 35. Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively con- siderable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X_ 36. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X_ -5- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Physical Environment: 1-4. Earth; 2,930 cubic yards of imported fill are proposed to be utilized in the grading operation to create a level building pad and driveway. This will not result in unstable earth conditions being created, changing of unique physical features, create erosion, or cause modifications to any water bodies. The proposed amount of grading per acre is within the acceptable range specified by the Hillside Development Ordinance. 5-6. Air; The proposal will not significantly cause negative impacts to air quality or affect air movement. 7-8. Water Resources; The project will not significantly change the flow of water or affect the quantity or quality of surface water as the approved plan will adequately handle drainage from the site. 9. Natural Resources; The site has been disturbed by prior grading. No significant natural resources will be impacted. 10. Energy Consumption; The project is not large enough to have a significant impact. 11. Archaeological/Paleontoloqical/Historical; No structures exist on site and the immediate vicinity has been previously developed with no significant discoveries. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT: 12-16. Plant Life/Animal Life/Agriculture; The site was previously disturbed and is in an area that has been substantially built out. The project will not decrease the amount of acreage of a prime agricultural crop. 17. Land Use; The proposed single family residence is consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning designations for the site. 18-19. Public Utilities and Services; Public utilities exist within the right-of-way adjacent to the project and services are provided to properties in the vicinity at this time. 20-21. Noise and Light or Glare; The project is not of a large enough scale to produce significant noise impacts and is setback an adequate distance from adjacent properties so as to reduce the possibility of creating light or glare impacts onto adjacent properties. 22. Risk of Upset; The type of use proposed will not utilize hazardous substances other than those sold for household use at retail establishments. -6- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued) 23. Population; The density of development proposed is within the limits specified by the General Plan Land Use Map. 24. Housing; The project will help reduce the need for additional housing. 25-29. Transportation/Circulation; The project is estimated to generate 10 average daily vehicle trips per day and all required parking is provided onsite. Access is provided to the site by a fully improved public street. 30. Emergency Response Plans; The single dwelling unit proposed will not interfere with emergency response plans. 31. Aesthetics; The project site slopes down below street level, therefore, it will not obstruct any scenic vista. 32. Recreation; The project will cause only a small demand for recreational facilities which will be provided for pursuant to the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 6. ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS; a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alter- nate sites for the proposed, and g) no project alternative. a) The project consists of one single-family residence. No phased development of the project is possible due to its size. b) The dwelling unit is located in the central area of the site and will not be constructed on slopes greater than 25 percent, therefore, alternative site designs would not be superior from the aspect of environmental impacts. c) The proposed residence meets building setback and height requirements in addition to all zoning ordinance requirements, therefore, the scale of development appears to be appropriate for the site. d) The project site is zoned for single-family residential uses and all street improvements are in place to accommodate the proposal. Adjacent uses are single family residences. e) The area is designated for single-family residential development on the General Plan Land Use Map. Development at some future time only postpones the eventual use of the site. Public facilities presently exist to serve the site. f) The project site is designated by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the proposed use. g) The site is appropriate for a single-family residence. The no project alternative would only transfer development to another site possibly where public facilities do not presently exist to accommodate the use. -8- DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. December 5. 1989 Date Signature i Tiate LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -9- APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature DN:af -10-